### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 489 -CR

Jo hn P aul M ye r s , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF LLANO COUNTY , 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 5753 , HO NORAB LE DANIEL H. M ILLS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A j ury c o n v ic te d

a p p e ll an t Jo h nPa

u l M y e r s o f

thr e e c o u n ts o f

p o s s e s s io n a nd manufa cture of methamphe tamine. See T ex . He alth & Saf ety Code Ann. §§ 481.112(a ), .115(a ) (We s t 2 0 0 3 )

. H e w a s s e n te n c e d to s e r v e th ir ty y e ar s in p r is o n . I n tw o is s u e s , My ers c ontends that the evidenc e wa s leg ally and factually insufficient to support a finding of g uilt. W e af

firm the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

I n 2005, the 33rd Judic i al Narcotic Enf orce ment Team (NET) be g an investigating My ers f

or possible narc otics activity . On April 1, 2005, the NET executed a se arc h
war rant at M y er s’s reside nce. E vidence was re moved from My ers’ s residenc e and se nt to the Texas Depar

tment of Public Safety

Crime L ab for

chemica l analy sis, where it was deter mined that at least one of the samples seized contained more than 470 g rams of me thamphetamine, including adultera nts and dilutants. My ers’ s written statement confirme d that the seized materia ls belong ed2

to him. I n a thre e-co u n t i n d i ct ment, My ers wa s char g ed with possessing and manuf actur ing methamphetamine. A jury found My ers g uilty on all three counts, and My ers was sentenc ed to ten, t w e n t y, an d t h i rt y ye ar s i n p r i s o n f o r c o u n t s o n e , t w o , an d t h r e e , r e s p e c t i v e l y, a l l t o r u nc o n c u r r e n t l y. My ers a ppeals, c halleng ing the leg al and f actua l sufficienc y o f t h e evide nce to support the jur y ’s ve rd ic t. I n a

le g a l su ff

ic ie nc y re vie w, we co ns id e r w he the r a ra tio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld have f ound the essential e lements of the offe nse bey ond a reasonable doubt. Vo do c ho ds k yv . S tat e , 15 8 S. W.3 d 5 02 , 5 09 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ). We r e vie w a ll the e vid e nc e in th e li ght most favor able to the ve rdict and assume that the trie r of f act r esolved c onflicts in the testimony , weig hed the evidenc e, and dr ew r easona ble infer ence s in a manner that supports the verdic t. See R ollerson

v . S tat e , 2 27 S.W. 3d

71 8, 72 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ); S h a m s v . S

t a te , 195 S.W .3d 346, 347 (T ex . Ap p . —

Au s t i n2 0 0 6 , p et
. re f’ d ) ( ci t i n g Gr iff in v . S tat e , 6 14 S.W. 2d

15 5, 15 9 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1981)). I n a fa ctual suff iciency revie w, the evidenc e is r eviewe d in a neutra l lig ht. Ro be rts
v . S tat e , 220 S.W .3d 521, 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Evidence is factua lly insufficient (1) when the e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g the ve rd ic t is so we a k that the ve rd ic t se e ms c le arl y wr on g and

manif e stl y unjust, and (2) whe n the supporting evidenc e is outweig hed by the gre at weight and pr eponder ance of the c ontrary

evidenc e so as to re nder the verdic t clear ly wrong and manifestly

unjust. Id. An appellate court must be appr opriately defe rential to the jury ’s verdic t, in order to avoid substitut ing its own judgment for that of t he fa ct-finde r. Va sq ue z v . S tat e , 67 S.W .3d 229, 236 (Tex. Crim. App.3

2002). We may

not re-w eig h the evidenc e and substitute our judg ment for that of the fact -f i n der. Kin g v . S tat e , 29 S.W .3d 556, 562 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The jury found, as al leg ed in the indictment, that My ers possesse d more than 400 g rams of me thamphetamine. Althoug h My ers doe s not dispute th at m ethamphetamine was prese nt in certa in substances seized from his home , he does cha lleng e the suff iciency of the e vidence to s up po rt

the jur y ’s fi nd ingthat a t le a st o ne of the sampl e s w e ig he d mo re tha n 4 00 g ra ms. The ter m “controlled s u b s t ance ” desc ribes var ious substances, including methamphetamine, and includes “the ag g reg ate weig ht of any mix ture, solution, or other substance containing a contr oll ed s u b s tance .” Te x . Hea lth & Safe ty Code Ann. § 481.002(5) (West Supp. 20 08 ), § 48 1. 10 2( 6) (We st 2 00 3) . A n a du lte ra nt o r d ilu tant i s “ any

ma te ri a l th a t in c re a se s th e bu lk or quantity of a controlled subst ance , reg ardle ss of i ts eff ect on the chemical ac tivity of the c ontrolled substance.” Id. § 481.002(49).

The Te x as Court of Criminal Appea ls has interpre ted t he leg islature’s de finition of “adulter ant or dilutant” to include a ny substance that is added to the controlled substanc e at a ny time:
The litera l meaning of t he legislature ’s adulterant and dilutant definition is that any substance that is added to or m ix ed with a c ontrolled substance , reg ardle ss of when, how, or why that substance was added, may be added to the ag g reg ate weig ht of the c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e a s an a du lte ra

nt o r d ilu tant.
Se als v . S tat e , 187 S.W .3d 417, 420 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Her e, the r ecor d evidenc e includes the t estimony of DP S chemist J oel Budg e, who tested the substanc es seized from My ers’ s home. Budg e testified that he tested the top lay er of one4

of the sampl e s and

tha t th e po rt ion

he te ste d c on ta ine d me tha mph etamin e and

ha d a n a g g re g a te
we ig ht o f 4 70 g ra

ms. My ers doe s not disp u t e the presenc e of me thamphetamine in the sample, but argues there is insuff

icient evidenc e of its we ight. Acc ording to My ers, “ Budg e testified a s to the total weig hts he tested fr om the liquids which were leftover s fr o m t he che mical sy nthesis and not p ar to f a n y

fi n i s h edp ro d

u ct
. ” C i t i n g Caw tho n v . S tat e , 849 S.W .2d 346 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992), My ers a rg ues t hat, because the weig ht of t he tested substance was not proper ly calc ulated, ther e wa s
no e vid e nc e to sh ow that he manu fa c tur e d or po sse sse d me tha mph e tamin e in the a mou

nt a lle g e d in t h e i n d i c t m e n tan d

s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y. The de finition of “adulter an t o r d i lutant” set out in Cawthon and adva nced by My e rs wa s su

pe rc e de d b y

the le g isl a tur e ’s la te r a dd iti on of an e xpre ss d e fi nit ion for tho se te rm s. See T e x. H e a l t h & S a f

e t y C o d e A n n . § 48 1. 00 2( 49 ); Se als , 1 87 S.W. 3d a t 42 0. Th e a

pp lic a ble definition of the ter

m allows for the inc lusion of “any substance . . . , r eg ardle ss of when, how , or why that substance was added” to the ag g reg ate weig ht of the controlled substance. Tex. Health & Sa fe ty Cod e Ann. § 4 81 .0 02 (4 9) ; Se als , 1 87 S.W. 3d a t 42 0. Con se qu e ntl y , und e r t he a pp lic a ble definition of the ter

ms, whether the substance te sted was a “finished pr oduct” or

not, as My ers
c on te nd s, is i rr e le va

nt t o o ur inq

uir y . Th e re c or d e vid e nc e is bo th le g a lly and fa c tua lly su ff ic ie nt t o support the jury ’s finding that My ers wa s in possession of 400 g rams or more of methamphe tamine, as alleg ed in the indictment. Se e Ro be rts , 220 S.W .3d at 524; Vodochodsky , 158 S.W .3d at 509.5 My ers’ s points of error

are overr uled, and the judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Waldrop and H enson Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 27, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh